State opts not to remove barrier for problem bettors entering casinos
Share this post:
The Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board will not go forward with a proposed change that would have made it easier for problem bettors to return to casinos.
People who ban themselves from casinos, a step known as self-excluding, must manually remove themselves from the ban list after their self-exclusion period expires.
The proposed change, which faced strong opposition, would have standardized the removal across all types of gambling bans in Pennsylvania.
Brick-and-mortar casinos are currently the only type that requires manual removal once the self-exclusion period expires. Bans for online gambling, video gambling terminals, and fantasy sports betting are automatically lifted.
Those who decide to self-exclude choose between a one-year, five-year or lifetime ban for casinos, online gambling and video gambling terminals or manually enter a number of years for exclusion from fantasy sports betting.
After a monthlong public comment period sparked more than 40 comments in opposition from more than 30 commenters, including addictions professionals and the Pennsylvania Department of Drug and Alcohol Programs, the board announced on Wednesday that it would not make the change.
Josh Ercole, executive director of the Council on Compulsive Gambling of PA, publicly opposed the proposed change, citing the increased risk of relapse if individuals are immediately able to return to casinos.
“Keeping individuals in a safer position rather than putting them in a potentially risky position, that’s always the right decision,” Ercole said. “I think the change would have put them in a precarious position.”
The Gaming Control Board said the people who commented overwhelmingly opposed the proposed change, voicing concerns about protecting individuals from relapse. The board is a state agency tasked with protecting the public’s interest by regulating casino and other types of gambling.
“This is how the process is to work and the Board appreciates everyone who took the time to provide input,” said Doug Harbach Gaming Control Board communications director.
Representatives from several casinos, including Live Casino Pittsburgh, did not take a position on the change but did submit public comments advocating for measures designed to better identify self-excluded individuals.
Live Casino declined comment on the board’s decision, through advertising and public relations manager Doug Haniford.
Approximately 85% of the commenters self-identified as associated with advocacy groups or counseling service backgrounds.
Jody Bechtold, a Pittsburgh-based gambling addictions expert and CEO of The Better Institute, shared a petition she created opposing the change to clinical professionals, prompting many comments.
“This was a very, very important decision. It impacts lives, and I was really pleased that advocacy and getting the story out really got their attention, and they listened,” she said.
Bechtold advocates for manual removal from the list across all forms of gambling.
“It really slows down an impulsive thought and really helps people think it through,” she said. “When it’s automatic expiration, people are triggered. They’re tempted by the very act of finding out that they can gamble again if they want to.”
When the change was first proposed, Harbach said it was a reaction to people entering casinos after their self-exclusion period was up without having removed themselves from the list.
He declined to comment on behalf of the board on Wednesday.
Ercole has seen it happen firsthand. People enrolled in multiple forms of self-exclusion have contacted the Council on Compulsive Gambling after mistakenly believing that their brick-and-mortar casino self-exclusion would automatically end just like their other self-exclusions.
“They misunderstood and thought that they were also removed from the casino program, and as a result, returned to a brick-and-mortar facility where they quickly found out that that wasn’t the case,” he said.
If a self-excluded individual enters a casino, any winnings are confiscated and they could face trespassing charges.
But Ercole, like Bechtold, thinks the solution is to standardize manual removal, not automatic removal, across all forms of self-exclusion.
“We feel that it should be unified in a way that better protects people and keeps them in that safe position, rather than puts them at increased risk,” he said.
Abigail Hakas is a reporter at Next Generation Newsroom, part of the Center for Media Innovation at Point Park University. She is a graduate of Chatham University. Reach her at abigail.hakas@pointpark.edu. NGN is a regional news service that focuses on government and enterprise reporting in Southwestern Pennsylvania.